Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

[jrch2k8]

after reading these 8 pages and the article i think this turned out to be a religius[FOSS/pay] war with no sense [ppl seems to automatic post his religious side without analize or previous reading the facts].

ok so far i think that stallman has 2 hardcore points[no is not about FOSS/pay]

point 1.) i think stallman is more focused on the FOSS mentality for steam products[hence not readeable as open source code] if they really wanna fit the community POV, and FOSS comunity is not about free[as 0 dollars] or open your code and stop eating or closed is heretic and should be burned. FOSS mentality is an proved engenieering POV about technical questions that has proven to be very succesfull so far which collides in some aspects with another succesful POV in how to do things from the engineer perspective[sure the are other more religious POV wich i leave zealots to discuss them].

so from where i sit i see stallman proposing a more FOSS solution to valve but not around valve products[believe me or not is a big diff], for example i think valve can massively benefit from an FOSS version of the game engine[putting the steam and drm bits as blobs libraries so be a FOSS or pay game it get easy to use the steam plataform to publish it], how you may ask?

a.) cost cutting: everytime you have to modify/adapt/update/upgrade/port your code from a bussiness POV it means burn tons of cash/overtime/hire developers/learning curves of the tech or base tech/etc. and normally this happen is very long release cycles and then you need aftermarket support to improve it or be more competitive and at the end of the day we pay for that but an shared effort between valve and community can bring you many hands/fresh ideas/eager testers/project support/faster adoption of standars and new technologies cutting that initial investment by a LOT but at the same time the community gains a well tested/rich/evolving game engine to our project/fun wich can be published on steam if you wish to add the drm blobs[in case of free games i think they just need a closed steam link cuz drm is not neccesary] and being GPL for example other publisher like EA will avoided like the pest cuz you are forced to contribute the changes back.

b.) support from users: having a portal where you can find many games free and payed [lets say lfd2 or the indie humbles for example] is a lot more attractive than have to purchase from a miriad of providers and considering option 1 that game creator should have a very low cost entry which will translate in cheaper games[and in many cases contributions to the engine] wich will attract more users

c.) support from game studios: in the long run if valve and the community can create a long standing/well documented and massively supported engine[valve should talk with unigine michael <--- hint] with superb graphics[valve lacks a bit here] upto date with you preffered OS/libraries the AAA+ studios will seriously consider migrate from unreal nightmare

d.) better change for small studios: if you lower the entry cost for developing games and valve actually give change to small companies to publish their games we can have some nice revival of the games[we all agree games are more and more boring/simplistic and some new blood could push AAA studios to work harder]

e.) many more but keeping post simple

now im not talking about open LFD2 or the valve publishing plataform[wich is their main bussiness if you were asking] but to work in sinnergy with the community in a mixed enviroment to provide mutual benefit, so is not about releasing texture or open products code is about a FOSS plataform base system to create those product cheaper/openly and more efficient for both sides[it doesn't mean linux only either since as you see many projects are multiplataform and FOSS] and i think valve and the community can greatly benefit from this [you can see this model working in projects like PHP, MySQL, apache, firefox, the kernel itself and a miriad of many succesful mixed projects]

note im not stallman im just trying to interpret his thought from a technical POV and i will response only technical question since im not interested in religious warfares from zealots/trolls of either side

[kraftman]

In the Soviet Union, everything was required to be in the Public Domain, and your work could not be considered private property.

We don't live in the Soviet Union. Stallman wishes we did. Too bad for him.

Those aren't comparable things. Why I can't take my friends car in Soviet Union? Because the car belongs to him.

[Xake]

That's just not true. What Stallman believes in is that software should be free (as in freedom), period. He even acknowledges in his blog post that game artwork is a different story.

This is a misconception of many people.
What he really insists on is that YOU BOUGHT IT, YOU OWN IT!, no more no less.
With other words, if you have bought something you should have the right to modify it yourself to work as you want it.

The thing people does not really realize is that they are currently not buying any software, they are buying the right to use the software as the maker seems fit.
And this kills classics. For example, anyone tried to get Monkey Island I or II to work on a modern computer? And then again WITHOUT SCUMMVM (which is a project only living because LucasArts did not what Blizzard did to Freecraft)?
And then again trying to get Grim Fandango working on a modern Windows computer (you know, one with 64-bit Windows)? Then without ResidualVM?
Yeah, Grim Fandango works great, but the installer does not (since it tries to run something 16-bit), so if you want to run it without ResidualVM you have to modify the installer, which is also prohibited according to Grim Fandangos EULA.

So what RMS really want is the possibility for you, the user, to be able to modify the software you bought to work like you want it, where you want it, without being (or have to be afraid of being) hindered by the software maker.
Then that he has become more of a philosopher trying to figure out what is most correct to do to make the community more open, and sometimes say thing that are true in an ideal world, but people in the real world who rather flame then think have a hard time handling is another issue.
But calling RMS a commie because of his views on the computer software industrial only shows how big your misconception is about both communism and RMS.

Or do you follow your local conservative (which seems to be the only ones thinking communism really is a bad thing, mostly because they never tried to figure out what it really was in an ideal world, and only looking on how badly implemented it got in the real world) representative blindly?

Edit: Sorry, flamed you a bit too, but please read with selective glasses so you see what was meant for you, and what was meant for some poeple who rather should fill out the ID10T form then the "Reply"-form.

[Flamaros]

Some people use Linux for its open source mentality, some people use Linux cause they think it is just a better operating system. Everyone uses Linux for different reasons. Is Steam bad or good for Linux? Who care's.. it's all about choice. No one is making anyone download Steam, it is the users choice. If you don't like don't install it.

Freedom start with the choice.
Maybe we need forget AAA games just because of MRS? Maybe we'll choose games with the GPL licence if their "quality" and numbers were enough to satisfy a hard core gamer?
Personally I am using Linux because I like his philosophy, but under Windows the game offer is greatest (variety, AAA). I just assume to paid games with RMS.

Customers also have the availability to improve things, with petitions, boycott, governmental elections,...

I think all is about balance when we do our choices.

For the moment I think is a good thing to see Valve come under Linux, the direct beneficial effect is the improvement of drivers,...
Unfortunately I'll not start my computer as first choice before the greatest part of my games will be able under Linux. (I have something like 150 games just with steam).

[blackiwid]

so where is the problem, you think X rms thinks Y live with it, its not that rms said I have the key if I do not aprrove it valve cannot enter the linux market.

So I see no damage when he says that. Guys who care much about there freedom will not buy that stuff anyway, and all the lemings or let it say neutral most users, dont care about it, not much people will not buy a game over steam because richard stallman says that.

Its like you want from a labour union people here that he agrees that his company reduces salarys to not fire people, he maybe goes with it because he misbelieves that less unemployment is a good thing, but he will not be making a big party over it.

[Hamish Wilson]

I really have little time for the zealotry of fanatical Stallman bashers who love to rag on Stallman for being about the only man in the whole world who leads a mostly un-hypocritical life based on ideas and values he came to for himself through a rational and considered manner. You do not have to subscribe to his ideas, but you have to acknowledged that if more people were like him and stuck to their values we would not be in as big a mess we are in today.

I also have little time for people who continually bring up points that have already been addressed time and time again, especially when the person they are complaining about never brought them up in the first place. Stallman never said you needed to freely distribute software for no monetary return, he never said you had to freely distribute game assets (and to all those arguing that games are merely entertainment, what is the entertaining part?), and he never said all free software had to be developed in the open (like many open source supporters rather than free software ones do).

Before arguing actually take the time to understand what you are raging about. And my greatest respect to those in this thread how have actually attempted to do that, Stallman supporter or non-Stallman support alike. You can disagree with him, but please do not disagree about his very person.

[PsynoKhi0]

Our community needs people like him, and whilst you don't need to agree with everything he says or does, he deserves some amount of respect.

My feeling exactly, it's good to have him stick to his ideals no matter what, as a reminder of what we as a community should strive for.
Pragmatism is one thing, though one should be careful not to let slip too many things for the sake of it, because while being pragmatic you're half way between free software and plain old lock-in. It's easy to head either way.

[Larian]

I really have little time for the zealotry of fanatical Stallman bashers who love to rag on Stallman for being about the only man in the whole world who leads a mostly un-hypocritical life based on ideas and values he came to for himself through a rational and considered manner. You do not have to subscribe to his ideas, but you have to acknowledged that if more people were like him and stuck to their values we would not be in as big a mess we are in today.

Woah, hold on, and stop for a minute there. As I read history, I find that people who doggedly stick to their personal values cause more grief and suffering than they tend to cure as a whole. This is because sticking to one's convictions is not necessarily a virtue. In fact, I think I can make a case for it being foolhardy. If one is willing to "stick to his guns" through thick and thin, even when it is harmful, then I don't think this should be celebrated. A reasonable organism takes his surroundings in context when he makes a decision, and modifies his behavior accordingly.

Take with a grain of salt those who would tell you "there is but one true way ... and I just happen to have it right here."

[Hamish Wilson]

Woah, hold on, and stop for a minute there. As I read history, I find that people who doggedly stick to their personal values cause more grief and suffering than they tend to cure as a whole. This is because sticking to one's convictions is not necessarily a virtue. In fact, I think I can make a case for it being foolhardy. If one is willing to "stick to his guns" through thick and thin, even when it is harmful, then I don't think this should be celebrated. A reasonable organism takes his surroundings in context when he makes a decision, and modifies his behavior accordingly.

Take with a grain of salt those who would tell you "there is but one true way ... and I just happen to have it right here."

But that is just another misrepresentation of what was said. There is a difference between being belligerent and following your values. Stallman has chosen his life for himself based on his own rational conclusions, and he has changed and adopted them as circumstances have changed. He has never tried to force them on others - advocacy and bigotry are two entirely separate things.

With that in mind, how can you honestly say following your values and actually being an honest transparent individual is a bad thing? Not necessarily applying this to you as I do not know you, but more often than not arguments such as the one you posted above are merely lazy attempts to justify self-serving dishonest positions and hypocrisy. One has to admire Stallman for never falling in to that.

[Larian]

With that in mind, how can you honestly say following your values and actually being an honest transparent individual is a bad thing? Not necessarily applying this to you as I do not know you, but more often than not arguments such as the one you posted above are merely lazy attempts to justify self-serving dishonest positions and hypocrisy. One has to admire Stallman for never falling in to that.

Well, allow me to offer some clarification by way of a few examples. I am arguing against dogged adherence to rigid values; and they don't get more transparent than this.

I give you the Westboro Baptist Church (and pretty much every hate group I can think of), as evidence of my claim. Please note that I am not comparing RMS to these people, but I'm using their blind adherence to a set of ethics as what I hope to be an obvious example of why this isn't always a great way to go. My question is, since RMS and the groups mentioned above both undoubtedly share a similar passion and a strong, consistent adherence to a position, there must be more than that before we can say they are worthy of admiration. Passion can't do the trick. Solidarity can't do the trick, either. Nor can a lack of hypocrisy.

All of the cases above believe that they are doing what is best for the majority, if not everyone. So no, I don't think we should put RMS on a pedestal just because he practices what he preaches or believes he's looking out for everyone's best interests. There's got to be more to it than that to differentiate him from the KKK in that regard.

So what is it about him that is actually worthy of admiration?